Saturday, February 24, 2007

When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.

Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Many things are contributing to such global temperature changes. Solar radiation is one. Sunspot activity has reached a thousand-year high, according to European astronomy institutions. Solar radiation is reducing Mars's southern icecap, which has been shrinking for three summers despite the absence of SUVS and coal-fired electrical plants anywhere on the Red Planet. Back on Earth, a NASA study reports that solar radiation has increased in each of the past two decades, and environmental scholar Bjorn Lomborg, citing a 1997 atmosphere-ocean general circulation model, observes that "the increase in direct solar irradiation over the past 30 years is responsible for about 40 percent of the observed global warming."

Statistics suggest that while there has indeed been a slight warming in the past century, much of it was neither human-induced nor geographically uniform. Half of the past century's warming occurred before 1940, when the human population and its industrial base were far smaller than now. And while global temperatures are now slightly up, in some areas they are dramatically down. According to "Climate Change and Its Impacts," a study published last spring by the NationalCenter for Policy Analysis, the ice mass in Greenland has grown, and "average summer temperatures at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet have decreased 4 degrees Fahrenheit per decade since the late 1980s." British environmental analyst Lord Christopher Monckton says that from 1993 through 2003 the Greenland ice sheet "grew an average extra thickness of 2 inches a year," and that in the past 30 years the mass of the Antarctic ice sheet has grown as well.

Earlier this month the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a summary of its fourth five-year report. Although the full report won't be out until May, the summary has reinvigorated the global warming discussion.

While global warming alarmism has become a daily American press feature, the IPCC, in its new report, is backtracking on its warming predictions. While Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" warns of up to 20 feet of sea-level increase, the IPCC has halved its estimate of the rise in sea level by the end of this century, to 17 inches from 36. It has reduced its estimate of the impact of global greenhouse-gas emissions on global climate by more than one-third, because, it says, pollutant particles reflect sunlight back into space and this has a cooling effect.

The IPCC confirms its 2001 conclusion that global warming will have little effect on the number of typhoons or hurricanes the world will experience, but it does not note that there has been a steady decrease in the number of global hurricane days since 1970--from 600 to 400 days, according to Georgia Tech atmospheric scientist Peter Webster.

The IPCC does not explain why from 1940 to 1975, while carbon dioxide emissions were rising, global temperatures were falling, nor does it admit that its 2001 "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic temperature increase beginning in 1970s had omitted the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming temperature changes, apparently in order to make the new global warming increases appear more dramatic.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

As we have seen since the beginning of time, and from the Vikings' experience in Greenland, our world experiences cyclical climate changes. America needs to understand clearly what is happening and why before we sign onto U.N. environmental agreements, shut down our industries and power plants, and limit our economic growth.

“Sorry Charlie,” goes the old Starkist commercials.The evidence of history is just preventing these environment whacko’s from having their way.Some even want the U.N. to start a global tax:

In 2000, French President Jacques Chirac called the Kyoto Protocol the first step to "authentic global governance."

“Sorry Charlie!”I will post yet another scientist (who was speaking at USC) who says trying to pin hurricanes on Global Warming is a bunch of hooey.(I suggest reading the whole article via the link.):

Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the NationalHurricaneCenter in Miami, said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don't bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC's geography building.

Further study continues to show that hurricane activity occurs in cycles of 20 to 45 years, he said. Even though the seasons of 2004, when four hurricanes bashed Florida, and 2005, when Katrina devastated New Orleans and neighboring parts of the GulfCoast, seemed shocking, they were no more intense than some storms in the early part of the 20th century and in the 1930s, Landsea said.

The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years and 1900-1905 was almost as bad, he said. So it is not true that there is a trend of more and stronger hurricanes.

"It's not a trend, it's a cycle: 20-45 years quiet, 20-45 years busy," Landsea said. Scientists currently have no idea what causes the time period.

What makes the recent storms seem worse is the amount of damage, and that is because of the amount of people and their structures on the coast, elements that barely existed in the early 1900s.

The 1,500 people who died in Katrina probably would have lived if they had evacuated, and that is the lesson for coastal residents, Landsea said.

"What happened in Katrina, we're worried could happen in other states," he said.

Global warming is causing hurricanes to be stronger, but it is such a small increase it is almost immeasurable, Landsea said.

The warming will make hurricanes "5 percent stronger 100 years from now," he said. "We can't measure it if it's that small."

GLOBAL-WARMING THEORY

As the "global warming" agenda is pushed, little focus is paid to the real causes, says Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.).

For example:

The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2; it is water vapor, which accounts for about 60 percent of the heat-trapping gases while CO2 accounts for about 26 percent.

We currently have CO2 levels of about 380 parts per million parts of atmosphere (ppm); a recent study completed at UC Davis concluded that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere 300 million years ago was on the order of 2,000 ppm.

Methane, another greenhouse gas, has other sources as well; 76 percent comes from wetlands, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material.

The current push to blame humans for global warming is not unlike the debate surrounding the depletion of the ozone layer years ago, says Rep Linder. It too was filled with misinformation:

The world's production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) peaked at 1.1 million tons per year; if 100 percent of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere.

That number is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone.

Hopefully, as people realize the earth is going through the same cycles of heating and cooling that we have seen over hundreds of millions of years, the global warming myth will do the same, says Rep. Linder.

A Reporters Without Borders report released in early November 2006 showed Egypt to be among the 13 countries with the gravest violations of freedom of expression on the Internet. Shortly after the report's release, on November 6, Egyptian blogger Abdelkareem Nabil Suleiman, known by his web pseudonym Kareem Amer, was arrested. [1]

Abdelkareem Nabil Suleiman had attended Al-Azhar for elementary and secondary school, in accordance with his parents' wishes. He wanted to pursue university studies in biology, but family pressure forced him to abandon these studies after two years and to enroll in the Department of Shari'a and Legal Studies at Al-Azhar. In 2004, he began to write for the reformist website www.rezgar.com. He also published articles on the Coptic website http://copts-united.com, as well as on his own blog, http://karam903.blogspot.com.

In October 2005, Suleiman was arrested after he published an article on Copt-Muslim confrontations in Alexandria, and was released 18 days later. [2] In March 2006, he was summoned to appear before an Al-Azhar disciplinary committee because of his Internet writings criticizing the role of religion in Egypt. The committee decided to expel him from the university. About his expulsion, Suleiman wrote: "Thus ended a black period in my life, which I spent between the walls of the big prison known as 'The Al-Azhar Institution.'" [3] In the last blog entry before his arrest, Suleiman harshly criticized Al-Azhar, and predicted that he would be arrested for doing so. [4]

A petition calling for his release has been posted online by the HAMSA organization ("Hands Across the Mideast Support Alliance"), an American Muslim association for promoting civil rights in the Middle East. It is a branch of the American Islamic Congress, a group established post-9/11 to promote interfaith and interethnic understanding. [5]

Following are excerpts from Abdelkareem Suleiman's last article before his arrest:

Al-Azhar's Teachings "Contradict Reason and Incite to Violence Against People of Other Beliefs"

"I started studying at Al-Azhar in accordance with my parents' wishes. Despite my later absolute opposition to Al-Azhar and religious thought, and despite my fiercely critical writing on religion's infiltration into public life, and religion's control over people's behavior and their relations with others... freeing myself from the bonds of being a former Al-Azhar University student was not... an easy thing.

"When I received my liberty, in the form of my final expulsion papers from the university in March, 2006, I thought that this would be the end of the matter, and that the fact that I had received these papers was, for me, a certificate of liberty from my Al-Azhar captivity and from Al-Azhar University, which arbitrarily controls first the lives of its students, and, to varying degrees, also the public and life in this country...

"However, it seems that Al-Azhar's 'blessings' to its students cannot easily be wiped out, and they continue to pursue the student like a shadow. A student who finished high school at Al-Azhar cannot apply to any state university. I attempted to do this several times this year and in previous years, before they expelled me, but none of my attempts met with any success. It is enough that you hold this infamous diploma [from Al-Azhar] for you to be unable to study like other citizens in the country, who differ from you in that they hold state high school diplomas.

"It seems that Al-Azhar's 'blessings' to its students are not limited to preventing them from completing their studies far from Al-Azhar. What happened to me, and what is going to happen to me in the coming days, clearly proves that Al-Azhar's 'blessings' will not leave in peace a student who tries to rise up against the university and oppose things he is forced to learn there - things that contradict reason and incite to violence against people of other beliefs - until he stands at the edge of his grave... or until he enters the prison gates. And it seems that this is what I am about to deal with in the coming days..."

"I Decry Any Law, Legislation, or Regime That Does Not Respect Human Rights and Liberty"

"A few hours ago, a summons from the general prosecutor arrived at my house, demanding that I show up for questioning next Monday...

"It seems that Al-Azhar's 'blessings', which I vainly imagined I had escaped when I received my certificate of liberty, continue to pursue me to this day, and my summons for questioning by the prosecutor is one of their manifestations. These 'blessings' do not leave their bearer in peace, until he is in a situation like that of Dr. Nasser Hamed Abu Zayd, for whom Al-Azhar's 'blessings' led to [a court] ruling that he must be separated from his wife; or a situation like that of Dr. Ahmed Sobhi Mansour, for whom Al-Azhar's 'blessings' led to his imprisonment and forced emigration from the country, once and for all; or, in the best of cases, a situation like those that of Dr. Nawal Al-Sa'dawi, Ahmed Al-Shahawi, and others, for whose writings Al-Azhar always advises boycotts and prevention of market distribution.

"I am not at all afraid. Luckily for me, the enemies of free thought, who treat me in ways that only the intellectually bankrupt employ, make me more sure of myself, more steadfast in my principles, and ready to deal with anything in order to express my free opinion, without any limitation whatsoever imposed on me by governments, religious institutions, or even the totalitarian society...

"The very existence of laws that define freedom of thought as a crime, and that punish with imprisonment anyone who expresses criticism of the religion [i.e. Islam] in any way, is a dangerous flaw in the law - [the law] which exists to regulate relations among people in society, not to suppress their liberty for the benefit of religion, the law itself, or the social order...

"I declare here, frankly and clearly, that I decry any law, legislation, or regime that does not respect human rights and individual liberty, does not recognize an individual's complete freedom to do anything and everything so long as he causes no physical harm those around him, and does not recognize an individual's complete freedom to express his opinions, whatever they may be, so long as those opinions remain words and entail no physical act that harms others."

"Human Rights Are Something Self-Evident That Needs No Legislation or Laws to Regulate It or to Define Its Essence"

"In addition, I hereby clearly declare that these laws do not obligate me in any manner. I do not recognize them, and I detest, from the depths of my soul, everyone who acts to implement them, and everyone who approves of them and derives benefit from them... I hereby declare that I do not recognize the legitimacy of my summons for questioning, since it is something [that violates] my right to express my opinion - a right established in the Declaration of Human Rights to which Egypt is a signatory. [Moreover,] even without referring to this declaration, and even if it did not exist and Egypt was not a signatory to it, human rights are something self-evident that needs no legislation or laws to regulate it or to define its essence.

"To all those who hate me and are hostile to me, who think that these primitive deeds might make me change my stands, influence me, and force me to stray from the path I set before myself, I say: Die in your anger and hide in your burrows, I will not, for a single instant, retract any word I have written...

"And to Al-Azhar, Al-AzharUniversity, to the professors and sheikhs at Al-Azhar who stood and stand against anyone who thinks freely, I say: You will end up in the dustbin of history. Then you will find no one to cry for you..."

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Do Liberals KNOW the Cost of What They Push?

Co2 Gases versus Aids/HIV & Malaria

Global Warming

February 19, 2007

STERN WARNING SHOULD BE IGNORED

Sir Nicholas Stern's controversial October 2006 report -- sponsored by British Chancellor Gordon Brown -- which purported to show the future harm from human-induced global warming has received a great deal of attention and criticism from economists, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

Among the discrepancies pointed out by economists:

The report assumed a 60 percent higher growth rate in global population than expected by international demographers.

It also assumed income growth rates that would be less than half the present rate.

Stern used inconsistent and arguably absurd discount rates that substantially underestimate the costs of cutting carbon emissions while simultaneously using a higher discount rate when calculating the benefits of immediate action.

In addition, the report ignores measures that would help people adapt to warmer temperatures, says Burnett. In an NCPA report, Indur Goklany exposed flaws in assertions by Stern and others:

Goklany pointed out that absent any efforts to tackle malaria in other ways, global warming is projected to increase global malaria rates by 3 percent.

By contrast, investing $1.5 billion annually -- just a minuscule fraction of the costs of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to the extent required by the Kyoto Protocol -- in malaria prevention and treatment today would cut the annual malaria toll in half.

Concerning hunger, Goklany observed, while the Kyoto Protocol would likely reduce the number of people facing hunger by less than 2 percent, investing an additional $5 billion annually to solve agricultural problems would cut by 50 percent the number of people at risk of hunger.

This reminds me of another article where an environmentalist speaks to where we can make a stronger impact:

Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world's top economists--including four Nobel Laureates--to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world's problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving of money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.

In another article we find that while Liberals may have the best for mankind in mind when they want us to sign the Kyoto Treaty, they are just wrong in how to help mankind… that’s all:

The question is wrongly put. Imagine if our forefathers 100 years ago had known about global warming. Would we have thanked them for not using fossil fuels even if it left us much poorer, able to do less, having say, 4 billion people living on $1-a-day rather than 1 billion? I certainly don't think so. The refrigerator, for example, has saved us from eating bad, rotten food. So stomach cancer has dropped from being the most prevalent form of cancer in 1900 to the lowest today.

The question doesn't hold today. Yes, global warming is (partially) man-made, but that doesn't mean cutting CO2 is the best thing we can do for the future.

If we cut carbon emissions with Kyoto, it will cost $180 billion annually, but only postpone warming for about five years in 2100. We have to ask:

Is that what the future really wants?

Take malaria for example. People point out that the spread of the disease will increase with global warming. This is partly true. If we conform to Kyoto Protocols, we will at best cut the total incidences of malaria by 70 million over the century. But if we really care about the future, we could do so much better. If we spend just $3 billion annually (less than 2% of Kyoto’s cost) on mosquito nets, sprays and medication we could save 28 billion people from malaria. Isn't that better?

Many people would undoubtedly say this only shows we should cut more CO2. But even if stopped global warming right now (very unrealistic) at a cost of much more than $85 trillion, this would only help reduce malaria by one billion cases over the century.

Many would say we should do both. Yes, we should do all good things, but until we do them all, I think we should do the best things first. At the Copenhagen Consensus, some of the world's top economists (including four Nobel Laureates) showed us which solutions do amazing good for our investments (HIV/AIDS prevention does $40 dollars worth of good for each dollar spent, malnutrition $30 for each dollar) whereas Kyoto does only perhaps 25 cents worth of good for a dollar. And cutting CO2 dramatically is even worse (about 2 cents). So the malaria argument, although just one instance, is emblematic of the larger case.

This does not mean we shouldn’t deal with climate change over the long-term, but we shouldn't make big, expensive, ineffective cuts now (which many politicians promise but inevitably fail to produce). Dealing with global warming is a century long process spanning parties, continents and generations. We need a smart plan. That is not Kyoto. That is investment in R&D for non-carbon emitting energy technologies. I have suggested spending 0.05% of GDP on this -- $25 billion annually. This won't solve global warming overnight, but it will be low-cost and doable. It will solve global warming within a century timescale.

To finally answer the question, let me repeat a story told by Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling. The UN climate panel expects that the average person in the developing world will be much richer in 2100 than the rich world is today (just like a hundred years ago, Denmark was a poor, peasant state.)

So, imagine an average Chinese, Congolese or Columbian in 2100 thinking back on 2007. Maybe he will be amazed we cared so much about him that we were willing to spend vast sums of money to curb global warming, helping him out just a little bit. But he will likely also think:

“How odd that they cared so much for me, who is now rich, but cared so little for my grandfather and my great-grandfather, whom they could have helped so much more, at so much lower a cost. These were the men who needed help most desperately.”

The following is merely a quick rebuttal to a few items constantly brought up to me by my son's friends to professors I see on TV. Keep in mind that what is below is a conglomeration of multiple responses so the info may not be uniform in context. However, the point is made, and the conspiracy whacko's are proven to be just that, whacko's!

I have heard in debates and theories about the Pentagon that:

an A-7 hit the pentagon with a pilot flying;

without a pilot (remote control);

an A-7 firing a missile just before it hit the Pentagon with a pilot;

and an A-7 without a pilot firing a missile just before it hit the Pentagon;

a cruise missile, three cruise missiles;

and A-10 hitting the pentagon with a pilot;

and A-10 hitting the Pentagon without a pilot;

and A-10 hitting the Pentagon firing a missile with a pilot;

an A-10 hitting the pentagon firing a missile without a pilot;

a UAV hitting the Pentagon firing a missile;

a remote control Boeing 757 without people on board;

a Boeing 757 with pilots and no people;

a Boeing 757 without pilots but with sedated passengers

. . . . etc., etc..

The problem is I have personally met two people that ACTUALLY saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon. There is also a photo of a large chunk of the [plane in front of the Pentagon, showing that Loose Change merely selected photos that do not show this (for propaganda purposes. . . which makes you ask why . . . maybe because they are connected to many anti-capitalist, anti-American groups that think an Illuminati conspiracy exists). And the other group of 9/11 doubters is headed and founded by a professor of economics. The problem is that his own universities engineering department has not signed on to his crazy theories about the TwinTowers.

A good book on the matter is:

A Friend Once Told Me:

The building dropped like a building that had been demolished by demolition charges. No other steel framed building in the world has ever fallen from a fire; the steel can withstand 2000 degrees of heat. Also, there is video of firemen saying they heard secondary and third-dary explosions

First off, no other building was built like the TwinTower buildings and the rest of the buildings in that grouping. A good documentary on the subject was done by The Learning Channel called WorldTradeCenter: Anatomy of the Collapse. Its design was so different that when the Loose Change guys compared it to other buildings they were lying about it being the same as other buildings. Plain and simple, this is what propagandists do. This building was totally different than any other building before or after it.

Secondly, the building didn't drop straight down. Parts of the building fell sideways onto the roof and sides of other buildings causing fires, damage, and the like for blocks around. I really noticed this just this past 5-year anniversary with all the footage. I have many documentaries on 9/11, so I went back and watched them. And sure enough, debris from the buildings fell for at least a block in some cases.

Thirdly, no one has ever said that jet fuel will destroy metal. It was the combination of the impact, multiple fires of metals and other combustible materials in the building, the impact stripping off the fire proofing from the metal, and the like. I will now quote an expert:

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that Popular Mechanics consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Fourth, there were secondary explosions when the electrical panels and boxes blew. This building was pumping huge amounts of electricity up to main points in the building. These blew. Also, elevators that finally gave way and came crashing down 30-to-forty stories allowing fuel and flames and smoke to the floors where these elevators ended up crashing to.

Fifth, I have seen the video of the fireman getting word that a bomb was found. This was the initial report. A car bomb was used in the 1993 attack and a police officer or fireman probably found what he thought was suspicious and word spread.

Just like when someone says he saw a UFO but later finds out it was an SR-71 (which glows green many times as it speeds down), or a meteor skipping across the earths atmosphere. Many times people say they saw X in a car crash, but other witnesses saw B, when the police investigators compile the evidence from all the witnesses a true story emerges. Some people swear their attackers had a mustache, when in fact they didn't. The conspiracy theorists use bits-and-pieces out of context, just like cult leaders.

(Without critical thinking it is easy to predict that if anyone believes this stuff now, they are a prime target for some cult, or New Age movement to entice them into believing really wild stuff. I study cults and crazy theories for a hobby, I know. . . if a person is this easily swayed without critically rethinking their position, wow!)

For instance: The Loose Change guys say no plane hit the Pentagon. Take note of the very large piece[s] of luggage, plane pieces, etc., boxed off in red (below). Hello, McFly. There is a worldwide movement against freedom, and it isn't coming from Bush. It’s coming from Revolutionaries who use propaganda -- like the PROOF I just showed you Loose Change used -- to change a government they do not like.

The Loose Change people show the photo below, making it look like this was the biggest piece of the plane found. The photo they chose to use made it look like the piece was really small.

However, compare it to the one below with a truck right next to it. It is a bit bigger than the first photo of it. Why did they choose this photo over the others? They want the viewer to think only one way so they selectively used photos to make sure the viewer agrees with them. This is known as propaganda, and willingly and knowingly telling a lie by deselecting the truth.

Loose Change also neglects to show how a semi-truck sized generator was struck (skimmed) by the engine of the plane right before it struck the Pentagon. The photo below shows where the generator was by marking where it should have been with a yellow outline. It was moved 45-degrees by the engine of the 757, which is evidenced by the huge gouge mark in the generator itself (caused by the engine of the plane).

Another photo that irked me was one of the spools just sitting in front of the Pentagon nice and neat. The problem is that some of these spools had been stacked neatly by this fenced area. As you can see, one of the engines hanging closer to the ground ripped through this area and spread the spools you see pictured. I would be interested to know also if the firemen moved the spools out of the way later in the day fighting the fires. One should take note that in the right hand side of this photo is the semi-truck sized generator I have shown (giving more perspective to where it is/was located).

And finally, another thing that was so obviously a cover up by Loose Change to make the viewer sympathetic was the bit about the windows not being broken in the Pentagon right near where the wing of the plane hit. First of all, the only real strong part of a plane like the 757 is the underbelly (pictured below), and the structures of the wings can be clearly seen in the following two pictures after that:

Obviously if this wing hit our house the windows would shatter. But the Pentagon wouldn't have windows like yours or my house. Click on the thumbnail below (you can click once more to zoom even further) and read for yourself about these windows... and then ask yourself: how was I ever duped by such easily falsifiable rhetoric?:

Click on the thumbnail

Here I am going to ad (3-29-07) a video produced by Purdue University and it shows why the pices of the plane were so small after impact: Enjoy

Dayton Responds

very interesting indeed

Luke Responds

Dayton introduced me to this blog of yours, and I gotta say, nice work.

I Respond

Thanks Luke.

For many years I followed the New World Order stuff, reading many, many books on the subject, even going so far as to visit the local John Birch Society meeting once-in-awhile, and after many years I came to realize that if you critically looked into the evidences for this giant conspiracy to fool mankind knowingly, it is shown to be wanting.

Currently the conspiracy to fool mankind is backed by liberals, however, when Clinton was President, it was backed by conservatives. For a theory or model to explain every possible outcome and have completely different backers depending on who's in office simply means that it is not a true theory or model because it is so elastic. And this is a conclusion that I came to a while back and had solidified by Michael Medved during his monthly Conspiracy Show (around the full moon). elastic.

Let me point something out though. The difference between the lib/con views of the giant conspiracy to fool mankind is that no leading political figure in the Republican Party accepted these crazy conspiracy myths as real. Today however, you have a huge chunk of the Democratic base accepting many of these wild stories and blame America first mentality, as well as many Democrat senators and representatives mentioning these crazy ideas.

Its funny, I can show someone proof that "X" didn't happen, but "B" in fact did. They will simply respond that that too was a cover up meant to fool the general public, e.g., me. There is no debating such a person. In fact, this was the original reason for my creating a MySpace, was to challenge a few of my oldest sons friends on this exact matter.

As for us Christians . . . I use to think that this giant conspiracy would fool mankind into following the Anti-Christ. Now I think the delusion of this theory will drive many people to accept almost anything . . . even a messianic type figure. In other words, it's the conspiracy theory ITSELF that breaks down the critical thinking and road to truth that makes accepting incredible claims without evidence, logic, history, and the like, more common place. Which is why having a healthy eschatology as a Christian is very important.

Sorry for the rant, again, glad you enjoyed.

PapaG

Mark Responds

You've got me almost convinced. But three words still ring in my ear.

Buildingnumberseven.

Building number 7 of the wtc was not hit by a 747, jet fuel or falling debris (aside from the dust that covered most of NYC) but mysteriously caught fire and imploded.

What - magic?

I Respond

Thank you Mark for your interaction here, it is welcomed.

Actually, building seven was hit by a massive amount of debris from Tower 1 or 2 (I will look into which tower when I get the National Geographic DVD, since that has the best shots of falling debris I have seen yet). What you may not know is that building 7 housed the city's emergency command post. The building was designed to remain operational if power were to be lost. How was this building designed to keep running if power were to go out? This is the part we don't hear too much about:

... There were a number of fuel tanks throughout the building that may have supplied fuel to the fires for up to seven hours. In addition to smaller "day tanks" on each floor, two 6,000-gallon tanks in the basement fed most of the generators in the building..... Two generators, located on the fifth floor, were connected to the fuel tanks in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time".... (p. 56)

...... WTC 7 was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. That required an unusual design in which a number of columns were engineered to carry exceptionally large loads, roughly 2,000 square feet of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." (p. 55)

Also note that trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed (similarly to WTC 1 and 2) to transfer loads from one set of columns to another.

(The following is added for my new readers):

I want the skeptic to look here at the damage caused by debris from the falling TwinTower to building 7:

Oooops, I guess the building was damaged after all!

Ryan Responded

Do you work for the government? lol...first off just because people have conflicting theories and haven't figured out everything doesn't mean there wrong. Ok I am pretty convinced that 9-11 was an inside job from the videos I have seen and you call people who believe in this wacko...not a very good thing if you want people from the other side to listen to you. I haven't read everything you said yet...I get headaches when I read. Do you have any google videos or something that I could watch that supports your side?

I respond

The best bet is to buy The Learning Channel's video "WorldTradeCenter: Anatomy of the Collapse", this is a great resource. Dude, you are talking to a guy that is going to recommend books all-day long... so you may want to find someone else to talk to. Some of the largest demolition companies were approached by the authors of the book I recommend, and they said that it would take two-teams of 75-people (each team) months to plant and strip all the supports columns on three floors. This went unnoticed?

Also, the "Loose Change" people have strange bedfellows... something the conspiracists always try to make connections to in regards to Bush and the oil companies.... I would say for them to look at the log in their eye first: